Source video question

Xstr8guy · 10-26-2006, 08:43 PM

I have source video .avi's from a DV cam. And here's my problem...

When I look at the file information in Explorer, it says the dimensions are 720x576.

When I open them with WMP, they display at 770x576 which looks correct to my eyes.

When I open them with Realmedia Player, they display at 720x576 (Explorer says this is the correct dimension) and that looks a stretched vertically a bit.

When I open them with WinDVD, they play at 720x540 and that also looks fine.

So what are the correct dimensions???? When I encode them, who should I believe?? I don't want to deform the video in any way. So what's a boy to do?

**gaybucks_chip** · 10-26-2006, 08:47 PM

Have you tried right clicking and opening the properties window for the file? I've noticed that different cameras seem to output at slightly different sizes.

Our camera seems to put out at 720x480, though I've seen 720x576 before as well. I think I would trust what comes up on the properties settings for the file, but maybe capture a couple minutes worth of stuff and try outputting it in different resolutions.

If you're feeling really fancy, get a piece of graph paper and tape a couple minutes of the camera pointing at that, then output it at a couple different aspect ratios. Whichever one doesn't distort the squares in the graph paper is the correct aspect ratio.

It *would* be nice if the software companies would standardize all this stuff

Xstr8guy · 10-26-2006, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Have you tried right clicking and opening the properties window for the file? I've noticed that different cameras seem to output at slightly different sizes.

I've done exactly that in Explorer and it says 720x576 which looks wrong to my eyes. Standing models look too skinny... kind of like an old 80's Heart video when the beautifully plump Ann Wilson comes on screen.

**basschick** · 10-26-2006, 10:44 PM

go with how it looks right to you - after all, whatever was done right or wrong, all that matters to your members is how it looks.

**gaybucks_chip** · 10-26-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Xstr8guy

I've done exactly that in Explorer and it says 720x576 which looks wrong to my eyes. Standing models look too skinny... kind of like an old 80's Heart video when the beautifully plump Ann Wilson comes on screen.

Maybe the DV manufacturers are conspiring with the producers of twink porn... people have always said our guys look a little undernourished

But I agree with Patti's assessment, I'd just say keep it consistent.

Xstr8guy · 10-27-2006, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by basschick

go with how it looks right to you - after all, whatever was done right or wrong, all that matters to your members is how it looks.

I know that makes the most sense. But I just want to be sure that what I see is correct.

**basschick** · 10-27-2006, 02:01 AM

can you cut a little piece of it without changing the size in any way and post it here? if not, can you post vidcaps of the one that looks good and the one that seems to be correct but looks weird?

btw, are these the originals or copies? if they're copies, they could have been saved at the wrong size...

Originally Posted by Xstr8guy

I know that makes the most sense. But I just want to be sure that what I see is correct.

Xstr8guy · 10-27-2006, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by basschick

can you cut a little piece of it without changing the size in any way and post it here? if not, can you post vidcaps of the one that looks good and the one that seems to be correct but looks weird?

btw, are these the originals or copies? if they're copies, they could have been saved at the wrong size...

Great idea Patti!

The first pic is from WMP at 770x576 (which I think looks right). The second pic is from Realmedia Player at 720x576 (Explorer says that this is the correct dimension)

Btw, the source video is .avi direct from the camera.

**gaybucks_chip** · 10-27-2006, 06:32 AM

Gosh, it's hard to tell, because my eyes play tricks because of the different dimensions.

I'm inclined to agree with you that the top image "looks" more correct but to me the difference is fairly subtle, and I don't completely trust that it isn't my eyes being influenced by the difference in image size. (BTW, the guy is really cute, too!)

Do you have the camera and a piece of graph paper that you can check it that way? It's the only way I can think of (unless you happen to have an NTSC test pattern) that you can definitively check for distortion.

And now that you've brought this to my attention, I should probably do the same thing with our camera. If I get a chance, I'll do that and post the results.

EonFilms_Ben · 10-27-2006, 12:10 PM

I agree, the difference is fairly subtle. The bottom image does look like the model is a too skinny. I'd suggest trying graph paper as well. If you don't have any, you can make some in excell or something like that.

Xstr8guy · 10-27-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Do you have the camera and a piece of graph paper that you can check it that way? It's the only way I can think of (unless you happen to have an NTSC test pattern) that you can definitively check for distortion.

I don't. My biz partner is in London and he is the photographer. So I'll have to ask him to do it. Thanks for the great idea!

Xstr8guy · 10-27-2006, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by EonFilms_Ben

I agree, the difference is fairly subtle. The bottom image does look like the model is a too skinny. I'd suggest trying graph paper as well. If you don't have any, you can make some in excell or something like that.

Well he is pretty thin to start.

And thanks for another great idea Ben.